Given recent posts here at TSZ challenging the validity of presuppositions and self-evident truths I thought the following list might be worthy of debate.
Presuppositions of Science
1. The existence of a theory-independent, external world
2. The orderly nature of the external world
3. The knowability of the external world
4. The existence of truth
5. The laws of logic
6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment
7. The adequacy of language to describe the world
8. The existence of values used in science
9. The uniformity of nature and induction
10. The existence of numbers
When critics object to the Logos as a presupposition and offer instead 10 other presuppositions, Ockham’s Razor flies out the window.
Hey Allen
1) what criteria do you use to differentiate actual truth from opinion?
1) Do you agree that if God exists revelation of “actual truth” is possible?
2) In your worldview is “actual truth” even possible?
3) how do you know stuff in your worldview?
peace
Animal, gate or rope fifth? Your opinion. There is no “actual truth” to be had, or you’d know it given everything else you’ve said.
yes all members of the Godhead are involved in all healing
cataract surgery among other things
exoskeletons among other things
chemotherapy among other things
Amputations have only been common for a couple hundred years so stay tuned. I’d say stem cells and 3D printing will be involved in the cure
peace
No, there is actual truth I just haven’t found it yet. Mostly because it makes no difference in the meaning of the passage.
The continual unfolding of truth is what makes life interesting
peace
Ah, yes, you are like the person who rushes their partner to the ER. Dozens of doctors are involved in saving the life of your partner but you simply thank god and leave.
So as far as I can tell your god does nothing.
So fifth,
You deny absolutely the “miracle cure” stories, and instead attribute healing to doctors with actual medicine? Then it seems we agree on one thing at least.
There are no miracles to be had at Lourdes. Prayer does nothing. We are agreed!
However your addition of “god” to the “Doctor heals” fails Occam’s Razor – it adds nothing and nothing changes if it is removed.
You say “yet” as if there is some probability of you finding that truth! There is not.
No, you already know the answer to everything, your world must be very dull.
To every question you can answer “The Logos” and need say no more.
I think FMM has a good point in his reply to this. Why can’t he advocate for his position, even if others may judge his advocacy incoherent by their standards?
I think freedom of speech would must allow him to advocate his position. It must even allow him to advocate a society that commits normative violence.
The interesting argument is about why a society that does not commit normative violence (a secular society, for example) is morally and otherwise superior to one that does commit normative violence. And then what counts as normative violence in a secular society.
fifthmonarchyman,
I don’t. It is my opinion that I am sitting here typing. I do regard that as an actual state-of-affairs as well, and I could get corroboration from others (although their corroboration could, I suppose, be part of an illusion…).
Obviously, that’s just a jumping-off point. Things we can directly access and cross check tend to be non-controversial, except 5 spliffs into a dorm-room conversation: “what do we rilly, rilly know, man?”.
But there are other ‘truths’ to which theists claim access. It is my opinion that God does not hate fags. I say that in part because I do not think God exists (ie, it is my opinion that this is the actual state-of-affairs).
I don’t think one could reliably separate such a revelation from a delusion, to be honest. I met a guy who claimed to be Jesus. He was sincere, but probably deluded. I was in an electrical goods shop, and heard this strange mumbling regularly interspersed with “right?”. I edged closer, and he was saying “I am Jesus, right? I will punish those who have done wrong by me, right? …”. A concerned lady asked him his name. “Jesus”, he said.
I think there are actual states-of-affairs – atoms, molecules, forces. I think they are real. I don’t see I would need to be a theist for such actual states-of-affairs to be real.
Through my senses (not just restricted to 5). I take a fair bit of not-directly-accessed info on trust through those senses too. I’ve never been to India, but I am happy to accept that there is such a region at those global co-ordinates. I’ve never done a crystal structure on DNA, but I’m happy to assert that I ‘know’ how DNA is oriented.
I thought some of you might be interested in this preface to a new book, Preface to Metaepistemology, which the author, J. Adam Carter just uploaded at Academia:
https://www.academia.edu/15545399/Preface_to_Metaepistemology_and_Relativism
Based on the contents, I think it covers a lot of the stuff that has been (endlessly) discussed on this thread.
Bruce, to KN:
I agree. KN has been veering off in a strange anti-free-speech direction lately in trying to wall off religion from the rest of life. According to him, we have no right to criticize religious beliefs, and believers have no right to advocate for policies based on their beliefs.
But why? Someone who believes that AGW poses a threat to society may freely advocate for a carbon tax, despite the fact that others deny AGW’s existence. Why shouldn’t a religious believer be free to promote policies based on religious beliefs?
Do you have anything on Mephistemology? That would be useful here.
Of course. I never said that a secular society should prohibit FMM from advocating normative violence; I only said that he shouldn’t advocate it.
There are many myriad forms of normative violence in secular societies; religion is not the only kind, though a very powerful kind. There’s normative violence in how we impose norms of gendered and racialized behavior, for example. A wholly secular society could still be perfectly patriarchal and white supremacist.
But you’re right that I haven’t really developed a critique of normative violence here. I’ve gotten as far as arguing that it is a threat to real democracy, but that only makes it as well-grounded theoretically as democracy itself is.
You are saying it is morally wrong for him to exercise his right of free speech?
Or are you just saying his position is wrong?
A fully democratic society would not have much free speech.
Or to put it another way, fifth:
You imply that to ask God to heal cancer is ok
But to ask God to heal an amputated limb is a “trick”
Why? If not simply that we know that cancer remissions occur and amputated limbs don’t regrow? And that there are perfectly good scientific reasons that this is the case??
I’m saying that it would be intellectually vicious of him to advocate a public policy that he knows could not be reasonably endorsed by anyone who does not share his particular world-view.
I’m a bit lost here. I see public policies advocated and implemented all the time that are not endorsed or accepted by everyone. Governments have various ways of creating laws, but laws pretty much imply the threat of force against those who disagree with them. And force implies the threat of violence.
I don’t think you understand in my worldview God is absolutely sovereign and totally necessary. Nothing can happen with out him doing it.
Doctors can’t heal with out knowledge because knowledge is impossible without God. knowledge is just the tip of the iceberg. In my worldview there can be nothing at all without God. You remove the Christian God and you are left with absolutely nothing.
peace
You think these things are real apparently but you can’t know anything. That is OK until you try legislate as if you do know things.
peace
No that is not it at all. There is no harm in asking God for anything the harm is in thinking he somehow owes you a response.
peace
So why do you think prayers to heal cancer are sometimes answered, but prayers to regrow amputated limbs never are?
I think my worldview is the only reasonable one. You think that as well or this thread would have ended ages ago.
Now I do agree that one should not advocate things that are the product of special revelation.
I would not advocate a law that prohibited lust or anger for example or that demanded compassion for the poor.
In the same way I would hope that folks with your world view would not advocate a law that demanded I celebrate a lifestyle choice that I believe to be harmful to society and the individuals involved.
It seems that the American founders had a pretty good idea with the separation of Church and State. They learned it from folks who believed a lot like me
check it out
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/god-government-and-roger-williams-big-idea-6291280/?no-ist
Peace
I think that answered prayer is not the same thing as getting what you ask for.
If you asked your boss for a raise and she said no would you say she did not answer you?
peace
You seem to be avoiding a question. Why is the answer yes only to those petitions which are sporadically granted even to non-petitioners?
fifth,
You’re dodging the clear intent of Lizzie’s question.
Cancer patients and amputees both pray to God for healing. If God sometimes heals the former, why doesn’t he ever heal the latter?
As to why God does not often choose to heal amputees I’ll venture a speculation if you like. The universe is not a hodgepodge of unrelated entities. The entire thing fits together as a single connected whole. You don’t do anything without affecting everything else.
If God was to go around materializing digits Ex nihilo at the very least our understanding of the laws of nature would be radically altered. Such an event if it happened often enough might prevent a talented young scientist from trusting the findings of his experiments and the cure for AIDS would never be discovered.
That is quite a price to pay for a new finger
peace
fifth,
As usual, you haven’t thought this through.
Spontaneous healing of cancer patients doesn’t stop people from researching cancer. Why would the healing of an amputee stop medical research, especially into something unrelated like AIDS?
We aren’t asking why God doesn’t heal every amputee. We’re asking why he doesn’t heal any.
Also, you suggest that God may be going light on the miracles to avoid discouraging medical research. If cures for AIDs and cancer are so important to your all-knowing God, why doesn’t he give us the frikkin’ answers? People are dying every day due to the information he withholds.
Think about it, fifth.
Who said it had to be ex nihilo?
Do salamanders regrowing parts radically alter nature?
Glen Davidson
Are you honestly going to claim that you have evidence that there have never been any amputee healings?
what about these
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/health/boston-double-arm-transplant/
peace
Do you honestly think that humans are not different than salamanders?
peace
Do you honestly think that’s a relevant question?
Glen Davidson
Yes a salamander can regrow a limb without our understanding of the laws of nature being altered,
Humans are not salamanders
peace
Your Logos has left you remarkably inept at dealing with at least this matter.
Glen Davidson
Well, that’s an interesting response. Are you saying that God can interfere with the laws of nature as long as s/he does not do it in a manner that makes it too improbable under those laws?
As long as the miracle is indistinguishable from natural causes. It is particularly important that miraculous healing be visited equally on believers and nonbelievers.
Which is why the experiments on intercessionary prayer are pretty damning. It doesn’t work. If God is determining who gets better and who doesn’t, s/he doesn’t seem to choose on the basis of who is prayed for.
God never interferes with the laws of nature. The laws of nature are God’s law. they are a big part of what the Logos is.
Miracles are not contrary to the laws of nature they are contrary to our limited understanding of those laws.
peace
Of course it could be that prayer works (but not for amputations) only God doesn’t distribute the requests to the target for whom the benefit is requested, but redistributes the prayed for benefits in an unbiased manner. Perhaps there would be fewer remissions from cancer if nobody prayed. But it would be difficult to do the experiment.
Logos appears to be both stochastic and deistic.
I’m amazed that folks think of God as a vending machine for goodies.
Perhaps at times God answers prayer by saying no it is better in the long run if I don’t carry your slippers
peace
`I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’
Correct that is sort of the point after all
If it was by works it would no longer be by grace Romans 11:6
peace
fifth,
I’m amazed that Christians like you have no concept of what benevolence is.
If you had children dying of some painful disease, and you knew the cure (or better yet could simply snap your fingers and make the disease vanish), would you withhold it?
God does not need to prove yo you he exists you already know he exists
quote:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it [revealed] to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
(Rom 1:18-20)
end quote:
peace
fifth,
Can you explain why God allowed a dog to eat this baby’s head?
Is it because he’s not “a vending machine for goodies”?
I’m amazed at the inability to see the big picture
Sometimes what you think is a disease is actually a treatment, Would you withhold chemotherapy from you child just because it made her sick to her stomach.
quote:
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
(Rom 8:28)
end quote:
That would include disease
peace
fifth,
No, you’re amazed that others choose to think instead of blindly swallowing the dogma.
What is the greater good that God accomplishes by allowing dogs to eat babies’ heads? That couldn’t be accomplished by a less grisly and painful process?
Open your eyes, fifth. If you look at the world, it’s clear that the God you believe in — omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly loving — doesn’t exist.
Interesting. I hope that’s wrong…but it may not be.
It seems to me it is you who is choosing not to think. It seems that you are letting your emotions decide what you will believe. Sentimentality or disgust are not always the best prompt for clear thinking
Allow me to speculate. Remember this is only speculation.
Suppose The greater good is the full display of God’s wrath to the universe. If so it would be necessary for the process to be as grisly and painful as possible. Otherwise it would seem that God was winking at sin.
Rebellion is a very big deal.
Of course if the victim is an infant then this grisly and painful process is relatively short in the overall scheme of things considering the age of the universe.
And once again keep in mind we are assured that everything including grizzly and painful things are for our benefit and good if we are God’s children. Also keep in mind that we are also assured that in the end justice will prevail
peace